Kurt Cobain Memorial thread

Quote:

---

Originally posted by meatdrink9
I think a lot of people were able to identify with Kurt and that helped them feel that their problems weren't their own. I know I've identified with other bands on this same level. We "the critics" need to shut our holes and give props to those to put something out there and create rather than sit back and complain about those people who are actually doing something.

RIP Kurt

---

Actually, I think that's part of the problem with how people evaluate popular music--today somehow 'identifying' with the band is seen as an important part of listening to them. I don't think that should be important at all, particularly not if you're talking about a band's role in the history of music (which we are supposed to be doing).
Telling critics to be quiet because they don't create the way those they critique do is to tell critics not to exist at all.

Check this out:

Don Mousseau

For anyone that appreciates a true guitar virtuoso. There's only 3 people that can (cleanly) play Steve Vai or Joe Satriani. That's Steve, Joe and this guy.

edit: Oh yeah - he designed the site too. He's won a bunch of graphics awards, etc. Talented mf'er he is.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by meatdrink9
Agreed, but who are you and I to be determining the "greatness" of anyone?

---

Um, I dunno... thinking, feeling human beings?

It's in our nature to evaluate good and bad. That extends to art. Anything in the public sector is subject to evaluation. Nothing new there.

Edit: spelling

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Tap
http://www.squidsear.com/ear/images/.../NakedCity.jpg

---

Y'know, he played a month straight (every single night) downtown, and I only got to one show (but I've seen a fair amount of him otherwise, so...).

Somewhere Gorak and furious 2 are rolling in their graves.

I heard once that if you took away Chopin that eminems head would just disappear.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Dexter Rutecki
Buster, I promise I didn't 'invent' this question. My Jedi mind tricks don't work on Schmear.
I didn't realize that in mentioning the Beatles and their importance I also had to account for Bo, Buddy, Elvis, Zappa, the Kinks...just because you didn't mention Jimi, Clapton, Buddy, Chuck B., James B., Byrds, etc. etc. I wouldn't think you're ignoring them. The Beatles wouldn't have existed without U.S. R+B, but that's not the point.
Many books have been written on this, I was just giving a brief example in response to a question.
I wouldn't tell anyone that Nirvana shouldn't be listened to, but my opinion of their musical importance is not very high. That's all. As for their influence on which way toilets swirl, well, I'd see a plumber about that.

---

Nobody singlehandedly does anything, except jack off.

And again, you have made your point quite clear that you think Nirvana is overrated. What about the Bardos?

Anyway, I don't really have a point beyond the one at the top of my head, but I thought you needed someone with which to argue. It's part of your rehab and my vast cosmodigilogical philanthropy.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Dexter Rutecki
Y'know, he played a month straight (every single night) downtown, and I only got to one show (but I've seen a fair amount of him otherwise, so...).

---

Jeez, you'd think he'd get tired.

Guy's a KooK. Me likey. Laswell too.

josh, dex, again I'll say who are you and I to be determining the "greatness" of anyone?

Obviously Nirvana was a good band. I don't think that is in question. But We're here acting like we matter, thinking we get to decide their greatness or position on some sort of greatness roster. Pretty arrogant IMO.


dex, music is personal. Identifying with a person or their words may be all that matters to one person. Who are you to tell them differently?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by meatdrink9

dex, music is personal. Identifying with a person or their words may be all that matters to one person. Who are you to tell them differently?

---

The keyboard is mitrier than the sword?
http://www.hatsinthebelfry.com/Merch...tepope-350.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Buster Highmen
Can I borrow your ears?

---

Any time, Doood...:)

I'm talking about influence, not sounding like. Hell, I'll bet Suicidal Tendencies (No pun intended) had some influence on Cobain / Nirvana, but they sound nothing alike.

MD9, I'll definitely agree with you that anyone who lives a creative life (as opposed to a passive one) has taken a great leap forward and deserves credit.

However the creator and the creation should be separated. One does not equal the other. It's possible to admire somebody for "getting out there" but to still judge that person's work.

So here's a question: is there a way to objectively determine which art is "good" and which is "bad"? How would YOU ('you' meaning the maggot collective, not just MD9) define it?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by meatdrink9
josh, dex, again I'll say who are you and I to be determining the "greatness" of anyone?

Obviously Nirvana was a good band. I don't think that is in question. But We're here acting like we matter, thinking we get to decide their greatness or position on some sort of greatness roster. Pretty arrogant IMO.


dex, music is personal. Identifying with a person or their words may be all that matters to one person. Who are you to tell them differently?

---

I'm not telling anyone differently, but to say a band is musically important because you identify with them is not only arrogant, but pretty silly. I 'identify' with Josh Loubek, therefore I think he's a great skier. huh? I could identify with the worst musician in the world, it wouldn't make his music any better. When I was a kid I felt deep identification with the Monkees and Jackson 5--does that make them any more relevant musically?
there's nothing arrogant in making a reasoned, well-defended claim about an artist's greatness. That's the basis of most scholarly work that addresses this.
Who am I to determine greatness? I don't claim to determine it, but why deny people a right to their opinion about who is and is not great? I don't get it. I've studied music and even played it (badly) for most of my life, so I don't feel any qualms about developing an opinion about musics. What kind of person wouldn't?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Buster Highmen
Jeez, you'd think he'd get tired.

Guy's a KooK. Me likey. Laswell too.

---

John Zorn is one of my favorites. I think he probably holds the record for appearances at the Knitting Factory. One more reason NYC does not suck (in spite of the big skiing problem).

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Schmear
So here's a question: is there a way to objectively determine which art is "good" and which is "bad"?

---

No.
As for ugly, well, that might be a good straightline for some tasteless and tiresome mom jokes.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Buster Highmen
The keyboard is mitrier than the sword?
http://www.hatsinthebelfry.com/Merch...tepope-350.jpg

---

Nice hat. Can I borrow it later?

but wait you guy's aren't even considering....ahhh fuck it !


:D

Quote:

---

Originally posted by meatdrink9

dex, music is personal. Identifying with a person or their words may be all that matters to one person. Who are you to tell them differently?

---

Much like art, music is subjective.

Although I think that we all can agree that Bach was a kook, minuet in g my ass.

Beatles this. Zepplin that.

The only band that matters in music right now is the Darkness.

Nuff said.

http://www.thedarknessrock.com/image...sion-cover.gif

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Schmear

So here's a question: is there a way to objectively determine which art is "good" and which is "bad"? How would YOU ('you' meaning the maggot collective, not just MD9) define it?

---

This is different than the question of 'influence', though, that I think you actually brought up. I would think it roughly equals 'greatness' in some way, also. There may be no purely objective way to evaluate influence, but you can certainly look at who other musicians credit with being influential/important. I would count the opinion of critics, too (sorry, MD).

As for what's good or bad, I'll continue making those decisions, thank you. (Ha, ha, lest a hugeairdog miss the joke)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sans Pantalons
The only band that matters in music right now is the Darkness.

Nuff said.

http://www.thedarknessrock.com/image...wtopbar_01.gif

---

Where's Beefheart and Jesse Colin Young when you need them?

Oh, c'mon. This is Amurika. Greatness == Sales!

Does 'The Darkness' take themselves seriously, or is it a sort of joke? I really laughed the first time I heard that single. They're like some fantasy of what 80's hair rock should have been.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Buster Highmen
Oh, c'mon. This is Amurika. Greatness == Sales!

---

I swear to gawd that I will pull a Britney Spears and go toxic on your ass if you do not acknowledge the greatness that is the Darkness.

If a band today released a cover version of The White Album that was every bit as technically and musically sound as the original, would you still consider it good art?

I'm just askin'.

(Of course I realize the answer hinges on whether you thought The White Album was good in the first place.) ;)